Some criticisms of the
Bible by Mr Straughen
and Mr Dowling in Investigator 60, 68, 69 and 71 contain
misunderstandings
that require detailed replies. In this article we'll consider
slavery.
Straughen and Dowling claimed slavery is evil and the Bible condones
slavery.
Many skeptical websites agree. For example:

Slavery was
established, regulated,
supported and sanctioned by the Bible.
www.relgioustolerance.org/slavery.htm

South Australian
academics Rodney Allen and
Ian Hunt, of the Centre of Applied Philosophy at Flinders University,
argue
for the reinstitution of slavery – but slavery with safeguards.
The
idea is to:
"solve…problems of long-term unemployment
and socially excluded underclasses.

Slave buyers would take
people out of the welfare
system and provide for their needs: "The institution of slavery would
be a huge help in stemming the tide of tax payer funded welfare
payments."
Needy people could then offer themselves as
slaves for set periods such as ten years. The law would regulate types
of work permitted and prevent maltreatment. An "Inspector of Slavery"
would
ensure no mistreatment occurs. Slave owners could not split up families.

Such benign, voluntary
slavery is analogous
to a stint in the army, or to a work contract, or to the position of
mid-20th
century wives.

EVIL AND SLAVERY

Critics often argue that
an Almighty God
could easily stop evil. God could, if God exists, make the world
pain-free,
happy and without slavery instantly.

A simplified answer
appears in the "Four
Skeptics" debate. (Investigator 63 to 72)

The answer is that the
original humans wanted
to rule themselves without God. How well humans would do at
governing
and in choosing values independently of God is an experiment.
Most
subsequent humans showed by their choices and actions that they
approved
of the experiment.

The Bible indicates that
social structures
and policies such as kingdom-type rule, animal sacrifices, polygamy,
slavery,
war, idolatry, infanticide, prisons and torture and maiming are of
human
origin. Such practices were instituted by humans independently of God
in
trying to build viable societies.

Several examples:

According to the Bible
God ordained monogamous
marriage of one man to one woman. (Genesis 3) Jesus pointed to
Genesis
3 to argue for such 1:1 marriages. Humans, however, thought up
polygamy.
(Genesis 4:19)

Genesis 1 to 3 also has
implications for
slavery. Genesis 1:27 teaches:

So God created
man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:28 lists what
things humans should "dominate" – not each other but the
"earth…fish…birds…every living thing
that moves upon the earth."

Therefore, if anyone has
a right to regard
humans as property it would be God – because he created them. But
Genesis
does not portray God as insisting on such a right. He instead permits
humans
to be autonomous and even rebel against him and go their own way.
Furthermore "God", by definition, is not owned but free – and this
should therefore
be true of anyone "in God's image".

All this we infer from
statements in Genesis
1 to 3.

The New Testament
teaches the reconciliation
between God and humans. Humanity is "ransomed" or "purchased" by Jesus
punished on their behalf:

For God so
loved the world that
he gave his only son… (John 3:16)

From this doctrine it again
follows that if
anyone has the right to own other humans it would be the God who
ransomed
or "bought" them. Hence, slaves should try to "gain freedom":

If you can gain
your freedom, avail
yourself of the opportunity… You were bought
with a price; do not become
slaves of men. (1 Corinthians 7:21, 23)

LAW OF MOSES

Slavery was an integral
part of ancient society.
It allowed debtors to pay off debt with work, thieves to pay for things
they stole, the poor to escape poverty, and prisoners of war to be kept
alive.

The Law of Moses is in
Exodus, Leviticus
and Deuteronomy. This Law was, the Bible says, a covenant (=legal
contract)
between God and Israel. (Psalm 147:19-20)

The Law did not oppose
social institutions
that humans had already previously set up except for devastating ones
such
as idolatry, sacrifices of children to idols, maiming of slaves,
torture,
religious prostitution, dangerous sexual practices, working people or
animals
to death, and punishing parents for children's crimes.

Other social/cultural
institutions – ones
that could be made benign – the Law regulated to minimize the harm.

As indicated above,
slavery is not necessarily
harmful. If slavery is regulated and made benign it would resemble a
work
contract.

Slavery by the Law of
Moses was benign. Exploitation
of widows and orphans whether slaves or not was forbidden. (Exodus
20:17;
21:2, 11, 26-32) Female betrothed slaves could not be sexually
violated.
(Leviticus 19:20) Hebrew slaves were set free after six years –
unless
they chose to remain slaves. (Exodus 21:2-7; Deuteronomy 15:12)
Every
50th year was a "Jubilee". Israelite slaves were freed; farms
that
had been sold and sold houses in unwalled villages were returned to
former
owners. (Leviticus 25:35-42)

Thus the Law guarded
against permanent slavery
and permanent impoverishment that could lead to slavery. (Crossan 1998
pp. 188-197)

Slaves were to be
treated as a "hired servant":

As a servant
hired year by year
shall he be with him; he shall not rule with harshness over him in your
sight. (Deuteronomy 25:53, 39-55)

Non-Israelites purchased by
Israelites or taken
as prisoners of war were, however, not released after six years.
(Leviticus
25:44-46)

The sabbath reduced all
people – masters
and slaves – to equality one day per week and one year out of seven.
(Deuteronomy
15:1-2, 7-11) Slaves could also participate in annual national
festivals.

With such benign slavery
slaves would not
ordinarily abscond. To abscond – thus risking death by starvation
and wild beasts – implied mistreatment by owners. Surrounding
nations
had laws to return run-away slaves – there were even extradition
treaties – but the Law of Moses stipulated:

You shall not
give up to his master
a slave who has escaped from his master to you; he shall dwell with
you,
in your midst, in the place which he shall choose within one of your
towns,
where it pleases him best; you shall not oppress him. (Deuteronomy
23:15-16)

The word "escape" rather
than "run away" suggests
this meant slaves who fled harsh treatment. Israel as a whole – the
nation – was itself according to the story of Exodus an escaped "slave"
from Egypt.
If any slave, therefore, experienced harsh treatment the Law of Moses
had
an escape clause.

The escape clause
appears unlimited–applying
to Israelite and foreign slaves. By "escaping", a foreigner would
then be a free "sojourner" in Israel protected by the commands:

Love the
sojourner therefore; for
you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. (Deuteronomy 10:19)

…you shall love your
neighbour as yourself… The
stranger who
sojourns with you shall
be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself;
for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Leviticus 19:18,
34)

The Law of Moses was
intended as the fairest
Law in the ancient world:

And what great
nation is there,
that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law which I
set
before you this day? (Deuteronomy 4:8)

We see this fulfilled in
the horrible social
institutions set aside and in how others – such as slavery – were made
benign.

BAD TREATMENT OF
SLAVES?

That the Law of Moses
intended only good
treatment of slaves we see by the provision that slaves due to be set
free
could reject freedom. (Exodus 15:12-18) Such a provision makes
sense
on the presumption that being a slave was a good way to live!

The Law also assumed
that an Israelite slave
could be prosperous and buy his own freedom. (Leviticus 25:47-49)

Straughen uses Exodus
21:20-21 to put the
Bible in as bad a light as possible:

When a male
strikes his slave, male
or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be
punished.
But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for
the
slave is his money.

Staughen calls slavery a
"barbaric" institution
and says:

Is it
acceptable to beat another
human being within an inch of their life, and go unpunished because the
slave owner profits from their bondage? … Once again the Bible
sanctions
the use of violence against helpless individuals. (Investigator No. 69
p.42)

Similarly B A Robinson says
on his Internet
site: "The owner would
have to avoid beating
the slave to death. But it was acceptable to beat the slave so that
he/she
was mortally injured and died a day or two later."

Such comment assumes that
Exodus 21:20-21 refers
to discipline of slaves by beating.

However, by reading
further – verses 12 to
27 – it seems the clauses deal with single acts of "striking" someone
as
in a quarrel or accidentally. These verses are not about
discipline.
Verse 18 uses the example of a "stone or fist". Verses 20-21 use
the example of a "rod". To see this as permission to beat without
restraint
or as permitting unregulated discipline is, then, a misunderstanding. A
seriously injured slave had to be released from slavery (vs. 26-27).
And
released slaves received assets to make a new start. (Deuteronomy
15:12-18)
This would be a serious financial blow to the slave-owner and therefore
strong motivation not to injure – deliberately in a quarrel, or
accidentally – any slave.

Ancient Israel had
beating as a punishment
for some offences but this would have been done by the proper
authorities,
after investigation, and not left to individuals to do to each other.
And
if a slave did have a nasty master who mistreated him, he had the
"escape"
clause already mentioned.

Another clause in Moses'
Law misused by skeptics
is:

If a man lies
carnally with a woman
who is a slave, betrothed to another man and not yet ransomed or given
her freedom, an inquiry shall be held. They shall not be put to death
because
she was not free; but he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to
the
Lord… (Leviticus 19:20-22)

Robinson comments: "There is apparently no
punishment
or ritual animal killing required if the female slave were not engaged;
men could rape such slaves with impunity."
Robinson is mistaken. The Law of Moses emphasises
virginity until marriage – never fornication or rape. The clause
in Leviticus 19 should be contrasted with chapter 20:

If a man
commits adultery with the
wife [which to ancient Israelites include a betrothed] of his
neighbour,
both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. (Leviticus
20:10)

If the woman committing
adultery was a slave
it was a mitigating circumstance and the death penalty was
waived.
That's the point intended in chapter 19 – not that unengaged slaves
could
be raped "with impunity." Also, if mistreated she had an "escape"
clause as already explained.

Third: If a
slave-owner gave a male
slave a wife, the owner could keep the wife and kids when the slave
became
free. (Exodus 21:1-7; Deuteronomy 15:12-18)

This does not imply
breakup of families.
The slave could choose to remain a slave, or live nearby, or when able
he could purchase their freedom.

Fourth: Skeptics
criticise the custom
of barren wives having children by proxy by giving a maid to the
husband
to get pregnant by him. (Genesis 16:1-6; Genesis 30:3-4, 9-10)
Robinson
says:

Being property,
female slaves could
be required to engage in sexual intercourse and become pregnant against
their will.

The events of Genesis 16
and 30 occurred prior
to the Law of Moses and reflected Bedouin custom of the time. The Bible
does not in Genesis 16 and 30 comment on the right or wrong of it. Also
we're not directly told whether the maids consented or not – although
becoming
a concubine and bearing a child would normally elevate such a woman's
status.
In the first instance (Chapter 16) the maid on getting pregnant
considered
herself superior to the barren wife. This suggests the maid was not
forced "against her will" but had accepted an opportunity.

Plurality of wives and
concubines were a
human institution. What the Bible teaches God wants is seen in Adam and
Eve – marriages of one man to one woman. (Investigator No. 19)

OLD TESTAMENT ASIDE
FROM MOSES' LAW

Job 31:13-15 heralds the
concept of equality
of all before God:

If I have
rejected the cause of
my manservant or my maidservant, when they brought a complaint against
me; What then shall I
do when God rises up? When he makes
inquiry, what shall I answer
him? Did not he who
make me in the womb make
him? And did not one
fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:13-15)

Many Old Testament
predictions portray a future
world where all nations and people live in harmony and equality under
one
God:

All the nations
that thou hast made
shall come and bow down before thee, O LORD, and glorify they name.
(Psalm
86:9)

Slavery is inconsistent
with such concepts.

THE NEW TESTAMENT

The institution of
slavery permeated the
Roman Empire. Italy alone had 3 million slaves in a population of 7
½
million. (Christ 1984 p. 44)

We've already noted that
Paul urged Christian
slaves to seek freedom. In addition the following principle would
have undermined slavery among Christians:

There is
neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for
you are all one in Christ. (Galatians 3:28)

Yet, some Christians owned
slaves. The Apostle
Paul counselled a runaway slave who became a Christian after
absconding,
to return to his master also a Christian. (Philemon 1-22) How is
that consistent with principles that undermine slavery?

Firstly, being "free" in
the Roman Empire
was not necessarily the best situation:

The most
oppressed social strata
of the Roman Empire were the fairly poor and impoverished sections of
the
rural population. Among those sectors those who suffered worst were not
the slaves on the latifundia [plantations], who were of value to their
masters and were at least regularly fed, but the mass of nominally
"free"
peasants, who were without means of support and who, in the
provinces,
often also lacked the privileged status of a Roman citizen. For
example,
the life of the "free" country-dwellers of Judea or Egypt was far worse
than that of the slaves on [an Italian] estate. (Alfoldy 1985 pp.
145-146)

Basic subsistence-level
living in the Roman
Empire required a yearly income of 850 to 1000 sesterces. (Crossan 1998
p. 180) Compare:

Secondly, slaves who
gave outstanding service
could gain privileged status:

Individual
qualified slaves might
be entrusted with supervisory functions, like the villicus, the slave
administrator…
Still more favourable conditions were enjoyed by the artisan and house
slaves, who often held positions of trust… (Christ 1984 p. 44)

Trusted slaves could
conduct business for the
master, keep a share of the profits, buy and own property, and even buy
their freedom. Runaway slaves in contrast lacked means of support and
faced
execution, as did rebellious slaves. The New Testament counsel to
slaves
to give outstanding service was therefore rational and in their best
interest
and not "infamous" as some thoughtless skeptics claim:

Slaves, obey in
everything those
who are your earthly masters, not with eye-service, as men pleasers,
but
in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. (Colossians
3:22-24; Ephesians 6:5-8; Titus
2:9-10; 1 Timothy 6:1-2)

Thirdly, Christians
numbered around 10,000 in
the first century and so could not overturn social institutions of an
Empire
of 40,000,000. The New Testament teaches:

Be subject for
the Lord's sake to
every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to
governors… (1 Peter 2:13)

Christians, therefore,
obeyed every law
that
did not conflict with God's requirements. (Romans 13:1-7; Acts
5:29)
They aimed to:

Strive for
peace with all men… (Hebrews
12:14)

Nevertheless the Bible
reports imprisonment
of Christians, murders and riots. History records Nero's persecution in
64 AD in Rome where 977 Christians were murdered. (Frend 1986) What
horrors
would have happened had Christians been seditious and urged slaves to
runaway?

Consider also how
slave-numbers were replenished.
John Madden (1996) discusses sale of offspring by parents, slaves
bought
from outside the Empire, reproduction within the slave community,
self-sale,
enslavement for debt, penal enslavement (ie conviction in law),
kidnapping,
and prisoners of war. After considering these sources of slaves Madden
sees: "an annual deficit of several hundred thousand slaves."

Where did the deficit
come from?

In Biblical Values
Promote Safer World
(Investigator 41) I showed that the ancient world was rife with
infanticide – murder of unwanted children. This practice contravened
the Scriptures
and so was opposed by Jews and Christians. Tertullian, for
example
wrote:

You [the
Pagans] in more cruel fashion
stifle your children's breath in water, or expose them to cold and
hunger
and dogs….

In 374 AD, after Christians
were numerous and
influenced legislation, infanticide became illegal.

However, in the
preceding centuries, foundlings – babies and children abandoned by
parents – made up the shortfall of "several hundred thousand" per
year. Slave traders would find abandoned
babies, or purchase them from finders, and sell them.

Outright opposition to
all forms of slavery
would have been tantamount to condoning the deaths of "several
hundred
thousand" infants per year by taking away the profit motive that saved
them.

AFTER NEW TESTAMENT
TIMES

The European slave trade
from the 16th to
early 19th centuries involved taking kidnapped Africans to America.
Some
defended this by citing the Law of Moses but they cited it only
partially.
Kidnapping someone and selling him was, by that Law, a death-penalty
offence
(Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 7) but this penalty the European nations and
America did not enforce on slave traders.

Bourne (1845) stated
that all slave traders,
legislators who condoned slavery, buyers, enforcers and owners deserved
to be executed!

According to Genesis
3:20 and Acts 17:26
all people have one origin. Therefore social distinctions based solely
on colour or nationality, as was American slavery, are scripturally
invalid.
American slavery, therefore, was based on lies for profit:

The love of
money is the root of
all evils. (1 Timothy 6:10)

In the 18th century
increasing numbers of churchmen
protested against slavery. Common arguments were:

1 The "golden
rule"
of Jesus–"So whatever
you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law
and
the prophets." (Matthew 7:12) 2 "You shall love
your neighbour as yourself.
Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of
the law." (Romans 13:9-10)

A bill for slavery's
abolition was passed
in Britain in 1807. Britain and the US signed a treaty in 1808
banning
the slave trade. Spain signed in 1817. Hundreds of
Abolitionist
groups operated in the United States.

The American Civil War
(1861-1865), with
600,000 killed and a nation devastated, was fought partly over the
issue
of slavery.

Liberated American
slaves often suffered
economically. But in time they benefited from new labour laws–which,
incidentally,
have their roots in the British Evangelical Revival.

Slavery is currently
returning in Africa–and
not the benign sort in the Law of Moses. Eads (1996) wrote on Slavery's
Shameful Return to Africa particularly Sudan:

Captives are
treated brutally. They
are branded, beaten and sexually abused. Slaves who try to escape
are beaten, mutilated or murdered.

Slavery is part of the
strategy for the Islamization
of Southern Sudan by the Khartoum regime with slaves being exported to
Libya, Chad, Mauritania and Persian Gulf lands.

The Law Report on
Radio National (Australia),
November 14, reported that 2 million women and children are trafficked
into sexual slavery each year including to all western countries.
Illegal trade on such a scale has to include large numbers of
recruiters,
kidnappers, guards, transporters, agents, buyers and brothel owners.

Such slavery has nothing
in common with the
slavery taught in the Law of Moses. It also violates Bible commands
against
kidnapping, immorality, law-breaking and doing no harm to your
neighbour.

THE ANSWER BRIEFLY

Does the Bible advocate
slavery? No.
The strategy in both the Old and New Testament was to make the
institution
of slavery – originally set up by humans ruling in opposition to God –
benign while also promoting principles that would undermine it.

For thousands of years
the Bible undermined
slavery by teaching that:

1 Humans were
created in
God's image; 2 Harmful
institutions are of human origin – part
of their rebellion against God; 3 Humanity was
ransomed or purchased by
God for a price; 4 All humans have
one origin; 5 You shall love
your neighbour as yourself; 6 Where slavery
exists we should work by
peaceful means to make it benign; 7 Abandonment of
children and kidnapping – major sources of slaves – are wrong; 8 God will rule the
world in "righteousness"
and all evil will be abandoned.

The demise of slavery is
among the numerous
benefits of the "Word of God" to the modern world. Humans who chose to
rule the world without God and instituted inhumane versions of slavery
were wrong. Everyone who promoted slavery other than the most benign
sort
was also wrong. In ethics and values the Bible was thousands of
years
ahead of its time – just as it was in numerous scientific points that
I've
discussed elsewhere.

I have read Anonymous'
article The Bible
on Slavery (Inv. 76), and am unable to agree with his central
arguments,
which appear to be: (1) Slavery is acceptable if it is benign. (2) The
Bible contributed in a significant way to the abolition of slavery. I
shall
now examine these contentions.

Benign Slavery?

Anonymous attempts to
downplay the evils
of slavery by quoting passages of Scripture that recommend slaves be
treated
humanely, however, slavery with a less brutal face is still slavery,
and
therefore just as wrong. Indeed, these recommendations merely seek to
abolish
the symptoms rather the cause – the institution of slavery itself. That
this approach is of questionable value is indicated by the following:

"The cases of
runaway slaves in
Israel bear testimony to their sufferings even at the hands of their
fellow
countrymen; cf. the experiences of the churl Nabal (1 S. 25-10), of the
passionate Shimei (1 K. 2:39), and Sarah (Gn. 16:6), the implications
as
to the frequency of such cases in the law of Dt. 23:15ff and in later
times
(Sir. 33-.24-31)." (Dictionary of the Bible, page 864.)

As far as I can see, there
is no real protection
for the slave from his master, except the good will of the master and
this
can't he guaranteed. Although a slave must be freed if his eyes or
teeth
are injured (Ex. 21:26-27), cruel beatings can be inflicted without
injury
to eyes or teeth. A slave might be able to flee from a cruel master in
theory, however, in practice it may not have been possible for all
slaves
to do so. It is important to remember that there were neither slave
unions
to protect a slave or argue for better work conditions, nor slave
inspectors
who carried out audits on slave owners to ensure the humane treatment
of
their chattels.

Concerning Ex. 21:20-21:
My opinion that
this passage of Scripture relates to the punishment of slaves is
supported
by Biblical scholars:

"If the slave
survived a day or
two, the master would escape punishment for "the slave is his money"
(Ex
21:21) – a phrase more appropriate to the concepts of other Near
Eastern
laws. The beating was assumed to be disciplinary. Corporal punishment
of
slaves and children was commonly accepted." (Pictorial
Biblical Encyclopedia,
page 664)

In my opinion, attempts to
make slavery humane
are doomed to failure because: (1) It is a system based on inequality
and
exploitation, and (2) An individual's humanity is negated by being
reduced
to something that that can be bought an sold like an object.
Consequently,
slaves were often treated like objects.

On page 35, Anonymous
appears to suggest
that God allows slavery to exist because it is an institution
established
by rebellious humans. I am unable to agree. Firstly, there is no
evidence
that God exists. Secondly, there is no evidence that, even if God
exists,
humans have rebelled against this being. Thirdly, even if the first and
second points are true, the problem is that God does not merely permit
slavery but actually encourages it by granting permission to enslave
people.

On page 41 and 42,
Anonymous appears to be
justifying slavery by citing some alleged benefits of slavery, such as
saving abandoned children and the better standard of living enjoyed by
slaves. However, as these benefits can be achieved without recourse to
slavery and the evils thereof, this argument is of little value.
Furthermore,
Roman plantation slavery was of the worst order:

"Since the
supply of such slaves
was large and their price cheap, their owners paid very little
attention
to the health and well-being of their human tools. When the slaves were
worn out, replacement was easy." (C. Roebuck: The
World of Ancient Times,
page 488)

On the same page (41),
Anonymous says: "Obviously
a "free" laborer might live in poverty or even starve!" True. However,
can we assume that a slave's regular meals are the sole measure of his
quality of life? Along with regular meals he might also receive regular
beatings. Need I remind my readers that Man does not live by bread
alone.

The Bible &
Abolition

Anonymous claims that
the Bible does not
advocate slavery and promotes principles that undermine it.
Unfortunately,
I can't agree with this statement when I read:

"You may also
buy from among the
strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you,
who
have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may
bequeath
them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you
may
make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you
shall
not rule, one over another, with harshness." (Lev. 25:45-46).

As can be seen, the nature
of Biblical slavery,
like that of the American version, contained elements of discrimination:

"Leviticus
makes a very clear distinction
between the "ebed ibri", the Hebrew slave, and the non-Israelite
"ebed",
for whom there was no freedom in the seventh, or Jubilee year and who
lacked
the legal protection given to enslaved Israelites. The Israelites,
therefore,
could not become slaves permanently." (Pictorial
Biblical Encyclopedia,
page 664.)

Anonymous says that when
Christians were in
the minority they were in no position to "overturn [the] social
institutions
of an Empire" (page 42). True. However, when they were eventually a
majority
nothing was done to outlaw slavery. Indeed, Christians have owned
slaves
throughout history.

In order to end slavery,
Christians need
not have "been seditious and urged slaves to run away" (Ibid). If the
Bible
clearly condemned slavery and urged Christians to free their slaves,
then
they could have done so and retained them as freed laborers I servants.
As the number of Christians grew, so too would the number of freed men
and women, and by the time the Empire was significantly Christianised
slavery
would have come to an end.

On page 43, Anonymous
appears to be suggesting
that Ex. 21:16 would have prohibited the European slave trade. However,
the bulk of African slaves were supplied to Europeans by fellow
Africans,
and many of these were victims of wars between rival African kingdoms.
So the Europeans obtained many of their slaves in the same manner that
the Israelites obtained theirs – by purchase from others.

Concerning the Bible and
abolition: As far
as I can see, it is questionable that the Bible played a significant
role
in the abolition of slavery. Rather:

"The opposition
[to slavery] which
began to mount in the 18th century reflected the growth of humanitarian
feeling, the increase in democratic sentiment, and the doctrines of
Jean
Jacques Rousseau and other philosophers." (Encyclopedia International,
Vol. 16, page 535).

To this I add the
following: (1) The growth
of humanitarian sentiment is unlikely to be due solely to the Bible,
for
if it were European civilisation would have been far better far earlier
than what it was. (2) The idea of democracy was developed by the
ancient
Greeks and owes no influence to the Bible. (3) Many of the philosophers
of The Enlightenment who desired to outlaw war, slavery,
poverty
and intolerance can be best described as freethinkers, rationalists and
sceptics.

Conclusion

I think it fair to say
that slavery is sanctioned
by the Bible, that this institution breeds injustice because it is
inherently
flawed and that Anonymous' claim that "the demise of slavery is among
the
numerous benefits of the Word of God" (page 44) is not
supported
by any sound evidence.

The Bible undermined the
institution of slavery
for thousands of years via at least eight principles listed in Investigator
No. 76. The Law of Moses for the Israelites allowed slavery of a benign
kind. That Law did away with human institutions that were hurtful but
retained
others that could be made tolerable if regulated. See No. 76.

PROTECTION AND LAW

Mr Straughen sees "no
real protection for
the slave" in the Law of Moses as there were no slave inspectors. (No.
79 p. 40)

If, however, there had
been "inspectors"
but who accepted bribes from slave owners there would still be no "real
protection". It's a problem everywhere that people break the laws of
their
country and victims suffer. Laws and regulations are not necessarily
useless
because some people break them. The Law of Moses was benign on slaves –
if obeyed. Furthermore, under that system priests administered the Law
and they – if obedient to all the principles – would have performed the
role of "slave inspector" too.

THE SLAVE IS HIS MONEY

When a man strikes
his slave, male or female,
with a rod and the slave dies…he shall be punished. But if the slave
survives
a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.
(Exodus
21:20-21)

Straughen still
thinks this clause in
Moses' Law permitted a slave-owner to discipline a slave by beating him
to death.

The Hebrew "nachah" is
usually translated
"strike" or "smite" as in my RSV Bible. (Wigram pp. 814-817)
Exodus
21:12-27 gives case law examples of striking with a fist or instrument,
accidentally or deliberately, and the penalty:

Whoever strikes a man
so that he dies shall
be put to death. Whoever strikes his
father or his mother… When men quarrel and
one strikes the other
with a stone or with his fist… When a man strikes
the eye of his slave…

So taken in this
context, verses 20-21
are about a slave owner who "strikes" his slave with a rod – which may
be
accidentally or in a quarrel.

If a free person injured
another free
person the penalty in Moses' Law was "eye for eye, tooth for
tooth".
If, however, a master injured a slave the penalty was different
– the
slave was offered his freedom.

What about accidents? If
a free person accidentally
killed another free person, his own life was severely disrupted – he
had
to move to one of six cities called "cities of refuge" and stay there
throughout
the tenure of Israel's high priest. (Numbers 35; Exodus 21:12-13)

But what if a
slave-owner accidentally injured
his slave who then died from the injury some time afterwards? I suggest
this situation is covered by the phrase "for the slave is his money."
The
requirement to move to a city of refuge was waived because the master
has
already suffered loss. In other words the master was not to suffer
twice – firstly
by losing "his money" and secondly by transferring to a city of refuge.
What Straughen construed as license to beat someone to death seems
instead
a ruling to prevent a double penalty.

FOREIGN SLAVES

Under the Law of Moses,
Israelite slaves
were set free every seventh year. Slaves in Israel from other lands –
foreigners – lacked this particular benefit.

The Law of Moses had 365
prohibitions and
248 positive commands many being case law starting with "If" or "When"
and describing specific situations.

The Sabbath rest and
festivals included all
slaves – Israelite and foreigners. (Exodus 20:10; 23:12) The entire law
– if obeyed – had much that benefited foreign slaves. Such would be
"strangers" – ie foreigners – and could also be "neighbours". The Law
stipulated:

The New Testament taught
principles that
promoted freedom from slavery but without actually ordering anyone to
free
his slaves. Anything more would have increased Roman efforts to
exterminate
Christians for sedition.

Paul sent a runaway
slave – who converted to Christianity
while on the run – to his master also a Christian. Paul wrote:

Perhaps this is why he
was parted from
you for a while, that you might have him back, no longer as a slave
but more than a slave, as a beloved brother… receive him as you
would
receive me. (Philemon 15-17)

This is close to
saying "free him" without
directly demanding it.

Freeing of slaves had
economic and legal
repercussions for both slave and master – therefore there had to be
allowance
for individual circumstances. The Christian principle was:

Straughen denies that
Bible principles influenced
the demise of slavery in the 19th century. He cites the
Encyclopedia
Britannica:

The opposition [to
slavery] which began
in the 18th century reflected the growth of humanitarian
feeling,
the increase in democratic sentiment, and the doctrines of Jean Jacques
Rousseau and other philosophers.

This quote does not
deny that Christianity
was behind such "humanitarian feeling" or deny that Rousseau derived
ideas
from the Bible. He was a Catholic and also studied Calvinism. His
slogans
"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" and "Man is born free; and everywhere
he
is in chains" echo biblical sentiment.

It's said that:

The religious revivals
of the Great Awakening
(1725-1770)…brought about a radical change in the prevailing attitude
toward
slavery. By 1804, most northern states had outlawed it. (Vander Lugt)

More specifically Some
Historical
Accounts of Guinea (1771) by Anthony Benezet, an American Quaker,
argued
against slavery.

John Wesley (1703-1791),
English religious
leader and founder of Methodism, wrote an 8,000-word tract–Thoughts
Upon Slavery–published in 1774. It received wide distribution.

Wesley answered
arguments that slavery is
necessary. For example to the argument that slaves were needed to
cultivate
land in British colonies where it was too hot for Whites to work Wesley
wrote:

I answer, First, it
were better that all
those islands should remain uncultivated for ever…than that they should
be cultivated at so high a price as the violation of justice, mercy,
and
truth. But, Secondly, the supposition on which you ground your argument
is false. For white men, even Englishmen, are well able to labour in
hot
climates; provided they are temperate both in meat and drink, and that
they inure themselves to it by degrees.

Throughout his tract
Wesley invoked Bible
principles against fraud, murder, blood-guilt, love of wealth, cruelty,
inhumanity and hurt to the innocent. He cited principles of liberty,
justice,
setting an example, honesty, love, family life, "doing as you would be
done to" – and mercy.

Seventy years later
George Bourne published Condensed
Anti-Slavery Bible Argument By a Citizen of Virginia (1845). Again
numerous Bible principles were cited.

John Brown was one who
overdid it. In 1859
he and some supporters seized a government arsenal with the intention
of
arming an "army of emancipation". John Brown was tried in Virginia,
convicted
of treason, and hanged.

That same day William L
Garrison – America's
best-known abolitionist – gave a speech in Brown's honour advocating
that
the Northern states end slavery by seceding from the South. In part he
said:

God forbid that we
should any longer continue
the accomplices of thieves and robbers, of men-stealers and
women-shippers!
We must join together in the name of freedom…

The slaveholder with his
hands dripping in
blood–will I make a compact with him? The man who plunders cradles –
will
I say to him, "Brother, let us walk together in unity?"…No, never –
never!
There can be no union between us: "What concord hath Christ with
Belial?"
What union has freedom and slavery?

…Oh, that the South may
be wise before it
is too late, and give heed to the word of the Lord!

My explanation answered
skeptics who ask,
"If God exists – and is limitless in power and loves
humans – then why doesn't He stop evil (including slavery)
instantly?"
Discussion of this "If" and "why" does not require belief in God
because
we're considering what reason God "could" or "would" have if He exists.
The Bible's teaching on slavery can ignore God so long as this question
is not raised.

CONCLUSION

My main evidence on the
Bible's position
on slavery is in Investigator 76 where the conclusion remains
valid:

The strategy in both
the Old and New Testament
was to make the institution of slavery – originally set up by humans
ruling
in opposition to God – benign while also promoting principles that
would
undermine it.

After reading Anonymous'
article on this
topic, I still find myself unable to agree with the main premise of his
argument – that the Bible played a significant role in the abolition of
slavery.

In the ancient world
slavery was accepted
as a fact of life and the authors of Scripture, who were influenced by
the prevailing views of the age, adopt a similar attitude towards this
institution. Furthermore, the Bible was not written by one person, but
by many different people whose personal views are reflected in its
pages – on the one hand we can find exhortations of brotherly love, and
on the
other commands to massacre entire populations.

Many believers have
claimed that Christianity
was instrumental in bringing about the end of slavery. In my opinion,
however,
this is an overstatement. In Northern Europe slavery was in decline by
about 1000 AD, and ended circa 1100 AD. The factors most likely
responsible
for its demise are as follows:

(A) The introduction of
labour saving devices – large cart horses, with frontal collars;
frontal yokes for oxen; the
new fail, the wheeled plough with mouldboard; iron tools; and the
proliferation
of water mills.

(B) Too few foreign wars
during the early
Middle Ages to provide captives.

(C) Slave revolts, such
as the one against
King Aurelius in Austrius in 770 AD.

(D) Economic
advantages–the feudal system
was more productive than slavery.

Unfortunately, in
Southern Europe the situation
was different – slavery flourished during the Middle Ages, and the
system
was again resurrected by Northern Europeans during the time of European
imperialism which, by and large, had the blessing of the churches.

I have no doubt that the
Bible did play a
part in the abolition of slavery – opponents of the trade did quote
Scripture
in support of their stance. However, proponents of slavery were able to
do likewise. The Reverend Thornton Stringfellow's essay, A
Scriptural
View of Slavery, is a typical example. He closes his defence of
servitude
as follows:

"In reference to the
question which was
then started, whether Christianity did not abolish the institution, or
the right of one Christian to hold another Christian in bondage, we
have
shown, that "The words of our Lord Jesus Christ" are, that so far from
this being the case, it adds to the obligation of the servant [slave]
to
render service with good-will to his master, and that gospel fellowship
is not to be entertained with persons who will not consent to it!" (T. Stringfellow: A Scriptural
View of
Slavery, Page 98 in McKitrick, E.L. Slavery Defended Views of
the
Old South)

In view of the fact
that both abolitionists
and slave owners could defend their respective views with Scripture, it
seems to me that the Bible was not the significant factor that decided
the issue. Indeed, I think it is more accurate to say that opposition
to
the slave trade arose from slave owners cruel treatment of their
chattels
and, as previously mentioned, the ideals of democracy, which influenced
Christian and non-Christian alike.

"The Bible undermined
the institution of
slavery for thousands of years", says Anonymous (Investigator
80
p.12). Such nonsense is regularly propagated by Christian apologists.
It
is so false, so contrary to what really happened in history, that it
must
be answered.

At the time of writing,
former Yugoslav chieftain,
Slobodan Milosevic stands before an international court to answer for
colossal
'crimes against humanity' – mass murders, mass rapings, all in the name
of 'ethnic cleansing'. However, the crimes of Milosevic pale into
insignificance
when compared to the deeds of the Israelites described in Holy
Scripture
... and allegedly carried out in obedience to their God.

For starters, let's look
at how the victorious
Israelites behaved as they swept across the Middle East, conquering the
villages – on this occasion, of the Midianites:

"And Moses said unto
them, Have ye saved
all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every mate among the little
ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But
all
the women children, that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep
alive
for yourselves." Numbers xxxi 15-18

There are scores of
similar accounts
to be found in these Scriptures (Deut vii 1-6; Deut xx 16,17 for
example) – all these crimes carried out by 'God's chosen people', under
God's appointed
leader, receiving his instructions direct from God! No rational and
objective
reader can interpret these accounts as other than the implementation of
orders for mass murder, mass rapings, mass enslavement specifically
ordered
by the Creator. If the Bible be true, God commanded the genocide of
whole
peoples; like the Amalekites (finally exterminated during the reign of
Hezekiah) for the terrible crime of defending their native lands from a
foreign invader.

As we look at the Middle
East today, it must
appear little progress has been made in the intervening centuries! As
the
killing continues, all those centuries later, participants still claim
to be acting under orders from their Supreme Being.

The question of
slavery

Some more 'godly
instructions': Leviticus
(25: 44-46) tells us–

"Both thy bondmen and
thy bondmaids, which
thou shalt have; shall be of the heathen round about you; of them ye
shall
buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers
that
do sojourn among you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be
your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your
children
after you, to inherit them for a Possession; they shall be your bondmen
forever."

Principles such as
these are frighteningly
similar to those vigorously adopted by the conquering Nazis as they set
about the enslavement of Eastern Europe in the early 1940s.

Nowhere in the Bible is
there any condemnation
of slavery – indeed the passages cited show that Jewish (hence
Christian)
scripture advocates the taking of slaves. Throughout these Scriptures
slavery
is as cheerfully and leniently assumed as are war and poverty. It was
an
institution that extended world-wide and endured for centuries. It was
accepted by Jesus and his disciples – in our translations, especially
of
the parables, there is frequent mention of 'servants', but the original
Greek almost always reads 'slaves'. Naturally, Jesus says we must love
them, but he never expresses a syllable of condemnation of the
institution
itself. Likewise, Paul approves – in fact, he is worse than Jesus –, he
travelled widely throughout the Greco-Roman world everywhere he visited
he would have seen thousands of slaves, but he never uttered a word of
protest.

Anonymous reminds us
that Paul sent a runaway
slave, converted to Christianity while on the run, back to his master.
He makes much of this, as do Christian apologists, always, that Paul
urged
kindly treatment of those enslaved, apparently unaware that this was
the
common attitude of the pagan moralists at that time – Aristotle urged
humane
treatment; Zeno included slaves in his principle that all men were born
equal, Epicurus was conspicuous for his kindness to slaves; he publicly
welcomed them to his table. This enlightened view was generally
accepted
by the Stoic-Epicureans. The Greek moralist, Dio Chrysostom (about AD
50-117),
who taught in Rome, made two of his most famous orations condemning
slavery
root and branch. We seek in vain for similar orations from the
Christian
Paul!

Roman Law did much to
mitigate the condition
of the slave. As early as 82 BC, the Cornelian Law abrogated the right
of a master to kill an offending slave... Claudius (AD 41-54) ruled a
master
was guilty of murder if he neglected with fatal effect, the treatment
of
a sick slave... Seneca induced Nero in his earlier years (AD 54) to
grant
slaves the right to appeal to the courts against cruelty.

Christianity became the
state power under
Constantine (?288-337 AD). It is impossible to determine in what sense
the Emperor was a Christian. Throughout his life he bore pagan offices
and titles and was baptized only a few days before his death. Amongst
his
deeds were the murder of his wife, his son and a boy nephew. In the
newly
established 'Christian state', not a word was said (or was to be said,)
by any Pope or bishop or saint about the sufferings of slaves; in many
ways their lot worsened.

Slaves could not marry,
they could (unlike
free men) be tortured to get evidence and could be burned alive for
false
charges against their masters. Legislation introduced by Constantine
was
of mixed value and his patronage of Christianity and rewards for
baptism
led to still more debilitating and truculent persecution. He abolished
many earlier reforms – parents were now allowed to sell their children
into slavery and finders of exposed children were permitted to enslave
them (or sell them as slaves). He also passed the law that if a
Christian
woman had intercourse with a slave, both should be put to death.

Future Christian
emperors continued with
the same repressive policies–proportionately there was more slavery in
Christian Rome than in any other city in the world. No Christian leader
denounced slavery until the ninth century AD, when the classical 'age
of
slavery' had ended.

Black Slavery

When this subject is
discussed today, most
people probably have 'black' slavery and the 'slave trade' in mind. The
capture and transportation of black Africans is the fertile area for
most
of the modem myths propagated by today's Christian apologists.

The main activists in
the 'slave trade' were
Protestant England, Catholic Spain and Portugal. Between them, in the
century
beginning 1680 (at that time there were 80,000 black slaves in
London–but
several years later, the civil authority, NOT the Church, forbad
slavery
in England!), nearly three million slaves were transported to the
Americas–ultra-pious
Spain drafted treaties of this traffic "in the name of the Most Holy
Trinity".
The English Captain John Hawkins gave such names as "Jesus" to the
ships
he used to transport the captives. The British Society for the
Propagation
of the Gospel in Foreign Lands, which sent out missionaries to
tell
the bewildered blacks how superior Protestantism was to Catholicism,
had
slaves on its own plantations in Barbados. In the southern American
states,
Baptists owned 225,000 slaves, the Methodists 250,000 slaves.

Whitfield, joint founder
of the Methodists,
believed in slavery and advocated the slave trade. It was of Whitfield
that hymn writer Whittier composed the two lines:

"He bade the slave
ships speed from coast
to coast, Fanned by the wings of the Holy Ghost."

The history of the
early campaigns for
abolition is that the opponents of this horror were the Quakers and
Unitarians
of America–had the established church had the power, in those times,
these
People would have been burned at the stake as apostates from
Christianity.
The 'received wisdom' is that slavery was abolished as a result of the
valiant efforts of a small band of dedicated Christians. The truth is
rather
different. The first texts against slavery published in America were by
Thomas Paine. [In America, in 1854, all the anti-slavery groups united
to form the Republican Party. Abe Lincoln, Ben Franklin, Tom Jefferson
were all freethinkers.]

It is true that for
every million Christians
who supported slavery there was one who opposed it. William Wilberforce
is most often cited although it is rarely appreciated he learned his
zeal
against slavery from the French Rationalists, while a sceptic and still
at school. He remained a sceptic until he reached the age of thirty.
His
important backer in parliament on the abolitionist position was William
Pitt who was an atheist.

Wilberforce's
Christianity must have been
strongly diluted with unbelief. As an abolitionist he did not believe
Lev
xxv 44-6; he must have rejected Ex xxi 2-6; he obviously did not
approve
of the many injunctions and permissions by Jehovah to his chosen people
to capture and hold slaves to which he referred earlier. In the House
of
Commons on 18 Feb 1796, Wilberforce reminded that Christian assembly
that
infidel and anarchic France had given liberty to the Africans, whilst
Christian
England was "obstinately continuing a system of cruelty and injustice".
Wilberforce found the whole influence of the English Court and the
great
weight of the Episcopal Bench against him. George III, a most Christian
king, regarded abolitionist theories with abhorrence and the Christian
House of Lords was utterly opposed to the granting of freedom to the
slaves.

Not surprisingly, in the
light of what has
already been considered, the abolition of slavery has taken place in
spite
of Christianity, not because of it. Do not misunderstand me.

It is not my
intention to discredit Wilberforce
and his colleagues. Students of the Third Reich will know that a few
individual
members of Hitler's SS secretly helped Jews escape the ovens of
Treblinka.
They were brave and admirable people–but to argue, therefore, that the
Nazi Party campaigned for the rights of Semites is no more ridiculous
than
to cite the odd Wilberforce as evidence that Christianity opposed
slavery.

The facts clash with the
popular 'received'
view of history (which Anonymous goes along with) – the
abolition
of slavery has not depended upon the deeds of great Christian
gentlemen.

The Black Jacobins,

A little over two
hundred years ago, there
began a slave rebellion which in the next ten years defeated the three
greatest empires on earth and banished slavery from the place where it
was most secure and profitable. Haiti is now one of the poorest places
in the world, in the 1780s it was possibly the richest. The island
which
Columbus had 'discovered' (and named Hispaniola) was colonised and
brutalized
for 300 years by French and Spanish empires. Whole cities such as
Nantes
and Bordeaux were built on trade from San Domingo–almost all the
coffee,
sugar, indigo, cotton and tobacco consumed in France came from there.
In
the decade before the French Revolution (1789) production in San
Domingo
doubled. Slavery was the key to this prosperity. In 1789 the population
was 570,000 – 20,000 were whites (slave owners, adminstrators; and
their
families), 40,000 mulattos (half-castes, mostly the products of white
rape!)
and the remainder black slaves.

Revolt broke out in
August 1791–many plantations
were plundered and burnt, owners and foremen killed. A huge army of
runaway
slaves collected in the mountains–the plantation owners quickly formed
an army of mulattos, with extra guns borrowed from the governor of
British
Jamaica. That winter the slaves were joined by a semi-literate coachman
named Toussaint (since he was born on All Saints' Day). He had read
some
of the anti-slavery literature coming from revolutionary France. Within
months he became the recognized leader and moulded the slaves into a
fighting
force. During the following months the slaves seized all the northern
ports.

In February 1794 three
delegates arrived
from revolutionary France (one of the delegates was an ex-slave)–the
delegates
declared "the aristocracy of birth and the aristocracy of religion have
been destroyed". The new government in Paris abolished all slavery
unconditionally
(note–not because of but in spite of the religious elements who still
supported
slavery). A large British army arrived to overthrow the slaves.
Toussaint
declared his allegiance for revolutionary France; he promptly threw the
Spaniards from all the port (in ten days of forced marches and surprise
attacks) and then campaigned against the larger British forces. In four
years of war the British lost 100,000 men killed in action before they
were expelled from the island. (The British government of the time was
that of William Pitt and William Wilberforce!!)

The superior morality of
the black slave
leader to that of Christian England is reflected in a letter Toussaint
sent to the British commander, General White, where he wrote:

"You have demeaned
yourself in the eyes
of this and future generations in allowing one of your commanders, the
cowardly Lepointe, to issue an order which it is not possible could
have
been issued without your knowledge: "Give the Brigands No Quarter! Take
no prisoners!" I am only a black man. I have not received as fine an
education
as you and the officers of His Britannic Majesty, but I feel that if I
were to be guilty of such infamy it would reflect upon the honour of my
country and I would have tarnished its glory."

In less than ten
years the slave army
under Toussaint had beaten off the counter attacks of the planters and
their mulatto army and the French, had beaten the full might of the
British
Empire; had beaten the Spanish and had abolished slavery throughout
the island. (The slave leader had changed his name to
L'Ouverture–"the
opening" to liberty and is usually known as Toussaint L'Ouverture in
historical
texts...)

'Back home', in France,
the Revolution had
been replaced by the man who would soon restore a ‘imperial power'.
Deals
were to be done with the Church and the Pope, and Napoleon, who aspired
soon to be 'crowned' in Paris by the Pope needed to become a 'true
defender'
of Christian doctrines including a return of slavery in the colony. The
French offered Toussaint negotiations to discuss a treaty with their
General
Brunet–Toussaint agreed, but when he arrived in good faith for those
discussions
was arrested, bound and shipped back to France in chains. He died in a
wet unheated cell soon after.

Here is the true story
of the end of slavery
on Haiti. Slavery never returned there. Haiti became an independent
country
and has been so ever since. These events took place in spite of
Christianity,
not because of it. Christian England and Christian France were the true
supporters of slavery at those critical moments when Toussaint's life
was
sacrificed.

I hope you will want to
read more about this...history
as it actually happened. Could I recommend the book The
Black
Jacobins by C L R James. It is world famous–originally it took form
as a stage play he had written for his friend Paul Robeson. I have not
used this book as I have written the above paragraphs; I do not myself
have a copy of it to hand. But I met CLR on several occasions in his
home
and at meetings when he lived in London, where he died in 1989.

The crucial steps were
taken in 1807 and
1834, when the British parliament abolished first the trade in slaves
and
then slavery itself in the British Empire. This action by the major
naval,
imperial and commercial power was decisive; similar measures were soon
enforced by other European nations and slavery finished in the United
States
in 1865. The end of the process may be reckoned to be the emancipation
of slaves in Brazil in 1888, at which date colonial governments and the
Royal Navy were pressing hard on the operations of Arab slave-traders
in
the African continent and the Indian Ocean. Many forces, intellectual,
religious, economic and political, contributed to and explain this
great
achievement, and debate about their precise individual significance
continues.
It is perhaps worth pointing out here only that, however abolition came
about, and though it was after three hundred years and more of
large-scale
slave-trading, no civilization once dependent on slavery has ever been
able to eradicate it except the European. (Roberts, J. M. 1981, The
Pelican
History of the World, Penguin Books, p.741)

THE BIBLEAGAINST
SLAVERY

Anonymous

(Investigator 82, 2002
January)

INTRODUCTION

In The Bible on
Slavery (Investigator
No. 76) I listed eight Bible principles that undermined the institution
of slavery. Dr Bob Potter and Kirk Straughen (No. 81) ignored these
points
and instead raised others that I'll now address.

Dr Potter also compared
the Israelite extermination
of the Canaanites with "crimes against humanity" by the Nazis. I'll
leave
this point as a separate topic and show another time that there is no
resemblance.

Potter's claim, however,
that treatment of
the Canaanites included "mass rapings" is mistaken. Leviticus 20 lists
the Canaanites' morality – men having sex with each other and with
mothers,
sisters, aunts, neighbours and animals. Verse 23 commands "You shall
not
walk in the customs of the nations which I am casting out before you."
Israelites who joined the locals in such conduct were sentenced to
death.
(Numbers 25)

18TH &
19TH
CENTURY CHRISTIAN OPPOSITION

By citing 18th
& 19th
century Christians who opposed slavery I did not suggest that: "slavery
was abolished as a result of the valiant efforts of a small band of
dedicated
Christians." (p. 37) I cited them to show that the Bible's opposition
to
slavery is not something dreamed up by me but was obvious centuries
ago.
To what extent those writers influenced the modern demise of slavery is
a question of historical analysis about which historians disagree:

Many forces,
intellectual, religious, economic
and political, contributed to and explain this great achievement, and
debate
about their precise individual significance continues. It is perhaps
worth
pointing out…that, however abolition came about…no civilization once
dependent
on slavery has ever been able to eradicate it except the European.
(Roberts
1981, p. 741)

Potter attributes
the demise of European
slavery to French rationalists. However, nations could not have banned
slavery without the approval of most of their subjects. And what
message
did most subjects regularly hear? In millions of churches people heard
principles like:

So whatever you wish
that men would do
to you, do so to them… (Matthew 7:12)…always seek to do
good to one another and
to all. (1 Thessalonians 5:15)

Add to this that
Christianity is for
"every nation…and people" (Revelation 14:6-7) and that all humans
originated
from one couple (Acts 17:26), and the anti-slavery implications are
obvious.

Even "rationalists" –
French and otherwise – must have been influenced by the Bible since, as
Protestants and Catholics,
it was the book they grew up with.

Straughen thinks that
"introduction of labour
saving devices" – large horses, iron tools, water mills, etc –
contributed
to slavery's demise. However, extra devices are no reason to dismiss
one's
workers – whether slave or free – and do the work oneself. If it were,
we wouldn't have people known as "employers".

SLAVE-OWNING
CHRISTIANS

"Christians" who owned
slaves had an "axe
to grind" – they enjoyed the privileges that being slave-owners gave
them.

Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), third American
president, opposed slavery in his 30s. As an ambassador in Paris in
1784
he joined in discussions on how to end slavery and vowed to free his
own
slaves in America. However, debt from extravagant-living plus his
regular
sexual use of a female slave made him ignore his earlier idealism:

But those who desire
to be rich fall into
temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that
plunge men into ruin and destruction. The love of money leads to all
[sorts
of] evil. (1Timothy 6:9-10)

The Bible teaches
that many Christians
superficially appear to follow Jesus but deny him by their conduct:

I know that after my
departure fierce wolves
will come among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own
selves
will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after
them.
Therefore be alert… (Acts 20:29-31)

I'll show below,
however, that some Christians
may, by owning slaves, also have acted rightly.

MISSING ORATION

Dr Potter cites several
ancient Greeks who
condemned slavery and says, "We seek in vain for similar orations from
the Christian Paul."

The New Testament is not
about how to manage
nations and societies but about living a godly life in them. Paul, as
previously
explained, urged slaves to "avail yourself of the opportunity" if
freedom
became possible. (1 Corinthians 7:21) Anything more might have gotten
the
tiny, already beleaguered, Christian communities exterminated for
sedition.
In addition I showed that the Roman Empire practiced infanticide. They
left hundreds of thousands of infants yearly exposed to die but many
were
rescued by becoming slaves. Outright opposition to slavery without
addressing
infanticide was tantamount to condoning the murder of infants by
opposing
the motive for saving them. Furthermore, freeworkers in Rome lived at
subsistence
level – often worse than slaves. (Investigator No. 76) Paul advised
slaves
to excel in good service. This was consistent with opposition to
slavery
since Roman slaves often earned freedom by good service–and then had
skills
to live above subsistence level.

The Christian Scriptures
therefore had the
best anti-slavery advice under prevailing circumstances:

But innumerable slaves
[in the Roman Empire]
were freed for good service. Masters in Rome constantly spurred on
their
slaves to work hard by offers of bonuses with which they could buy
their
freedom… Roman slaves were often able to secure that they were well
treated.
Many had hours of recreation during the afternoon, and might have found
the week of forty hours in the twentieth century irksome. (Thomas 1981, pp.
109, 110)

By focusing on one
principle – slavery – and forgetting others, Dr Potter ignored
infanticide, living standards,
the best way to secure freedom, and Christians having the right to
avoid
self-destruction.

True, the New Testament
lacks a single lengthy
oration against slavery but that merely critiques the relative space
given to that topic. The NT opposes all evil that hurts people
including
murder, hate, deceit, war, idolatry, false prophecy, betrayal, racial
prejudice,
sexual immorality, inhumanity, greed, inhospitality and many other
human
failings. Whether the Bible allocates appropriate space to each subject
is a different debate!

BENIGN SLAVERY

My first article on
slavery (No. 76) conceded
that the Law of Moses allowed benign slavery among Israelites – so
benign
that slaves scheduled for release might choose to remain slaves. I also
cited persons in the Flinders University Philosophy Department who
argue
that benign slavery – limited to perhaps ten years and equivalent to a
work contract – could solve employment and economic problems of modern
societies.

Slavery conditions in
Medieval Europe and
the Americas varied:

There were, too, many
diversities of treatment
among those who were slaves during the Dark ages in Europe. Some slaves
were looked upon as human cattle in their master's house. Some were, in
effect, 'tenant' slaves, living like free tenants though unable to
participate
in judicial assemblies or be summoned to the army… But slaves in
mediaeval
Europe often had a cottage and yard of their own, even if the duties
demanded
of them were constant. (Thomas 1981, p. 110)

Domestic slaves
throughout the Americas were
in a privileged position and often gained freedom in the end. In
general
the Americas slaves were able to rely on better food than the free poor
white, black or mulatto. It was chiefly these latter who, owing to a
lack
of vigour induced by undernourishment, fell a prey to anaemia,
beriberi,
worms and buboes. (Thomas 1981, p. 295)

Considering that slavery
often gave better living
conditions than freedom, many Christian slave owners may have retained
their slaves out of concern for them. The basic Christian standard is
not
"You must oppose slavery" but rather: The commandments…are
summed up in this
sentence, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." Love does no
wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
(Romans 13:8-10)

RECENT SLAVERY

Remember, 19th
century opposition
to slavery grew in countries that often added Bible principles into
their
laws. Where governments opposed the Bible and Christianity, slavery
often
returned. Millions became slaves in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany:

Yet the carriage of
nearl four million
people by railway to Poland was a severe burden on the German war
machine
while if the Germans had used the Russian Jews intelligently, along
with
other nationalities, they might have won the war. (Thomas 1981, p. 681)

The Japanese Empire
forced 200,000 women
into "sexual slavery" and tried to work 500,000 prisoners of war to
death.
Slavery – enforced by beating and mutilation – is currently rife in
Eastern
Africa. There, a Christian charity – Christian Solidarity Worldwide –
buys
slaves their freedom. (Green, 2001)

CONCLUSION

In Investigator 76
I gave eight Bible
principles against slavery. John Wesley's tract that I also referred to
gave additional Bible arguments.

Principles derived from
the Genesis creation
story suggest that the institution of slavery was invented by
rebellious
humans in opposition to God. The Law of Moses retained human
institutions
that could be made benign – including slavery – and regulated them to
make
them benign.

The New Testament is
against slavery but
not if their release causes added suffering – "Love your neighbour" has
priority over opposition to slavery whenever the two principles clash.

References:

Green, C. $60 for a
Human Life, Focus, No.
106, September 2001, pp. 14-20 Roberts, J.M. The
Pelican History of the
World, Reprinted 1981, PenguinThomas, H. An
Unfinished History of the
World (Revised 1981), Pan Books.

Does
the Bible Condone
Slavery?

Jerry Bergman

(Investigator 84, 2002
May)

Much discussion has ensued in these pages
over the question "Does the Bible condone slavery" without ever
defining
the word slave. The term slave has referred to a wide assortment of
people
involved in a large variety of social systems throughout history.
Professor
Jewett noted that when the New Testament was written

the term
slave had a formal bureaucratic
meaning for the Roman audience. The Roman bureaucracy that was rapidly
developing at the time Paul wrote this letter was made up of highly
trained
and highly paid slaves of Caesar. These persons were preferred in the
imperial
offices because they were loyal to the emperor alone, hoping for their
freedom after some years of loyal service. Many of the slaves
serving
in the imperial bureaucracy became fabulously rich because of their
handling
of imperial finances. Also, during the time Paul wrote, the
expression "slave of Caesar" was often used for imperial ambassadors or
representatives
of various kinds. Such persons carried the majesty and power of the
emperor
with them as they represented him in foreign courts (1997, p. 11-12).

In Bible times,
therefore, the term in Rome
had a meaning very different than it does for many persons today. In
Rome
the slave status was a honor, a position of trust and authority that
could
lead to becoming emperor, as sometimes happened then. The
pre-civil
war slavery system in the southern United States was in many ways very
different than many slave social systems. Therefore, to conclude that
the
Bible condones slavery implies something very different in modern
America
than in ancient Rome.

The Christian Greek
Scriptures emphatically
condemn mistreatment of one's fellow humans, and this teaching was a
major
factor in the overthrow of the notorious American system of slavery.
Many
of those in the antislavery movement, as is also true in the modern
American
civil rights movement, were motivated by Christianity. Rev. Dr. Martin
Luther King, Rev. Jessie Jackson, and many others were very clear as to
the source of their opposition to the many injustices committed for
decades
by the American government and people against Blacks living in
America.
Carroll and Shiflett note that

Indeed, Christianity's
importance to abolitionists
may have been equaled only by its importance to slaves themselves, who
were sustained by its message of hope and its assurance of a liberty
that
transcended their current bondage (2002, p. 47).

And Walvin notes:

The simple
message of the brotherhood
of Christ, of the equality of all believers and the fraternity of the
life-hereafter
sent a fizz through the slave quarters–and a cold chill through the
slave-owning
community (Quoted in Carroll and Shiflett, 2002, p. 47).

Furthermore both

religious
belief and public commitment
was common at all levels of the antislavery campaign. Robert William
Fogel
observes that even "the principal architects of the secular appeal –
including
John Quincy Adams, Joshua R. Giddings, and Salmon P. Chase – were
deeply
religious men" who also realized that "the evangelical movement was a
major
political constituency that could not be won for the antislavery banner
by purely secular appeals" (p. 47).

In Ireland,
Christianity eventually helped
to revolutionize the world, replacing the old values of a warrior
society
with the new values of Christianity. Within St. Patrick's
lifetime,
warriors cast aside their swords of battle, intertribal warfare
decreased
markedly, and the slave trade ended. A culture of battle and
brute
power was transformed by an ethic that sanctified manual labor,
poverty,
and service. A culture of illiteracy and ignorance became a culture of
learning (Colson and Pearcey, 1999, p. 301).

It is noteworthy that
even the socialist publication
New Internationalists (June, 1989, p. 31) admitted that "individuals of
conscience" such as clergyman William Wilberforce, helped to bring
slavery
in Britain and elsewhere to an end. Called "deeply Christian, vibrantly
evangelical" Wilberforce wrote in his diary when he was 28 that "God
Almighty
has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade
and Reformation of [Morals]" (Quoted in Piper, 2002, p. 37).
Wilberforce
fought battle after battle in Parliament, many which he lost. He
persisted
though, and finally prevailed after 20 years. As a result in 1807 the
slave
trade became illegal in Britain. "Before this great cause," he said,
"all
others dwindle" (quoted in Piper, 2002, p. 37).

Today, a form of
slavery exists that is in
many ways worse than most systems that have existed in history. These
modern
day slaves must work in poor conditions, often for over 12 hours per
day,
and are paid as little as 50 cents American a day. If they complain,
they
can be released without just cause because 10 people are often in line
for their job, each one anxious to take their place. In the old
American
slavery system the slave owners had a considerable investment in their
slaves and therefore, for selfish reasons, slave owners were usually
very
concerned about the slaves health and welfare. This contrasts to modern
slavery, which has little regard for the future of its easily
replaceable
workers.

This modern form of
slavery encompasses close
to one billion human beings, and has made a tiny minority of owners so
wealthy that the wealthiest 358 persons in the world are worth more
then
the combined annual incomes of the poorer countries that are home to
45%
of the entire worlds population (Kawachi and Kennedy, 1997, p. 1037).

The sin of Christians,
both then and now,
is to ignore their own holy scriptures. The New Testament especially
condemns
in no uncertain words the modern form of slavery, both as practiced in
pre civil war America and that practiced today.